To say the vice president has no real power is to forget what Dick Cheney has done to the country.

Reiner, as someone who lives on US soil, I have to respectfully disagree with you about Obama or Clinton being as bad as the Bushes. For his own people Clinton was a true progressive, wrt to both economic policy and social policy. If you don't like the word progressive there, then at least one can say 'he got a lot of good things done.'

In terms of foreign policy, we do tend to ignore Clinton's atrocities, esp. Bosnia and Kosovo. But if we're looking to compare degrees of atrociousness (a pointless enterprise, as no amount is acceptable), then I find it hard to claim he's as bad as Bush.

I don't know how to interpret this. I am not defending Clinton -- is that what you think? -- I am only saying Bush is much worse.

Exactly.  They're all as bad as each other.

She the one whose daughter is expecting a baby illigetimatly? And she thinks that to be open about it be better than a scandal which it is already!!

I was surprised to see the use of that word. Surely it hasn't been the case for a long time?

I'm afraid I cannot reconcile my personal experiences to what you say.  I see no difference whatsoever between the Democrats and the Republicans, as manifested by their actions.  I have no doubt at all that Clinton - given his propensity to murder innocent people for the sake of political capital - would have reacted to 9/11 in the same way (or even more ruthlessly) than Bush did, and cheerfully massacred just as many people with his stinking grin on his face   The concept that the Democrats are in some way more inclined towards peace and negotiation is a false one - as Kennedy's merciless military onslaught against Vietnam amply demonstrates.

The modern world is striating along new lines, and the "New World Order" (persistently referred to by Bush, Blair, Brown and others) is emerging on one side of the equation - the rest of the world on the other.  It's not a struggle between Right & Left - that's merely a mirage.  It's a struggle between the collapsing economies of the "developed" nations (whose resources are finished), and the developing nations whose resources are required by the former "masters".  Since the "masters" can no long afford to buy the resources, they sieze them by force, and hold the other nations under the threat of preemptory air bombardment, "regime change" (ie appointing puppet leaders by stealth or force), or outright nuclear annihilation.  

The penalty for failure to dance to the US tune is attack and invasion.  It's the ultimate self-deception to believe that this policy is in some way alterable through elections.

So that's what Sarah Palin looks like. Didn't she used to be 'er off SpecSavers?

I heard that all her friends call her 'Alaska' and when she takes speed they laugh and ask her what is in her mind.  I suspect they wait a long time for a useful reply.

Seriously, though, I haven't seen such an obvious example of floundering since the Dubya interview where it became clear he either didn't know or had forgotten the name of Musharraf - the person he was commending to us all as most effective leader in the region.